Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf
Does that mean if you dishonestly appropriate someone else's property, but you have the intention of giving it back (say in 25 years), it's not theft?
|
Luckily the theft act clarifies it to say:
Quote:
|
A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other's rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.
|
So that is still theft as you taking it for 25 years is clearly a period equivalent to the outright taking. If you only took it for a short period that doesn't breach the others rights over it, it's not theft.
For instance, if you left your car unlocked with the keys in the ignition (so as I don't have to break into it) and I found your car and whilst you're asleep I drove your car around and then returned it (with any fuel I used replaced) that's not theft. However if I didn't return it before you woke up and needed to go to work, that is theft, even if I retuned it the same day as I breached your right to use it as you wished.
Quote:
Originally Posted by carol_s
They are depriving Virgin of income - which could be construed as theft (at least in my eyes)
|
To say that they were depriving Virgin of income (which would actually be theft, the theft act specifically mentions money as a physical possesion) you'd have to beable to prove beyond all resonable doubt that if they didn't have the box they'd actually pay for the service, which is pretty much an impossibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frogstamper
Well said Carol, I would imagine most people would see it that way. Whatever way you look at it its taking/accessing something you've no right to, in my book that's called theft.
|
Still doesn't mean that it is theft though.
In my book an elephant is called a giraffe and a giraffe is called an elemaphasinama. My book is wrong, as is yours.
There are specific laws made to cover unauthorised reception of broadcasts precisely because it's not theft, if it was they'd just charge you with that as it has a far greater sentence.
If a card is a spade there is no point trying to claim it's a club because no matter how much you think it is and how many times you say it is it's still a spade and you're just wrong.
You may think it doesn't really matter and if you think it's theft then it's allright to call it theft and anyone that does it a thief, but there's another legal word for that, libel.